Quote from: NotATether on August 12, 2023, 02:55:35 PM

Quote from: Little Mouse on August 12, 2023, 01:55:24 PM

Quote from: NotATether on August 12, 2023, 12:29:22 PM

I don't remember whether you had a minimum merit/120 days requirement for this review, but perhaps you might need an active account requirement as well, after this.

There was no 120 days merit requirement but a lifetime 50 earned merits + Full Member minimum rank.

See, that's the mistake. Assuming malicious applicants, what is there from stopping old, dormant accounts from before the merit system coming in and making applications?

Or people who've earned their 50 merit a year ago and hardly get a merit in 6 months?

These are exactly the kind of things that 120 day merit requirements stop, because it can identify the active, constructive user from the inactive user and also the spammers/bounty hunters/etc.

I think that wasn’t a consideration here and shouldn’t really be with the review being just a one time thing and merit requirement is not always an absolute judge.
Still, it was a duty Jamyr old his contractor to deliver or refund. At least the user had been active within the period of assigning the contract and had been on/off before that, perhaps few days or a week interval in between posts. It would have been much easer to read the detail contained in the OP carefully and take notes to when you could deliver on contract as the manager would have been open to accepting or giving directives on request.

It’s just becoming clear now that something has been going on with the account, following the series of password changes via email and secrete questions also, the not so activeness of the account but hey, his getting the other side of the bargain and it’s fine to be say it’s okay.